I’ve started to read heart of darkness recently, and frankly, it has been quite a struggle.

At first, I thought this book will be my cup of tea, I love history and also reading the classics, so a book criticizing colonialism in Congo sounded intriguing to say the least. But I already read the first 60 pages of the book, and it has been so difficult to follow.

The book is filled with archaic words, and there are so many metaphors. It’s like the author tried writing the book as complex as possible. I sometimes have to reread entire paragraphs just to understand what is happening and it’s quite frustrating.

I’ll admit that I’m not a native speaker, but I consider my level of English to be quite good and I didn’t expect it to be so difficult to read this book. I read war and peace and the count of monto cristo in English and they were much more interesting and easier to follow.

I saw some negative reviews about the book but I assumed they were mostly about the patronising and racist nature of the book, I didn’t think the writing would be so senseless.

​

Should I keep pushing on or just give up on the book? Is it worth finishing it?

  • Indifferent_JackdawBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    It is dense.

    I personally also class The Heart of Darkness as one of those classics which benefit from being a bit older reading them. I don’t know how old you are. It may not be relevant. I just engaged with the story better in my 30’s or 40’s. I still hate the ending, I can’t imagine a scenario where I wouldn’t hate the ending. But I appreciate the first 75% more now.

  • boxer_dogs_danceBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    If War and Peace and Count of Monte Cristo had modern translations, then it is not the same type of reading challenge.

    The language has changed

  • ksarlathotepBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Well, it’s an 1899 novel and written in a pretty old style… but you say you love reading the classics, so I don’t think it should give you all that much trouble? As I recall it’s not really any more complex or archaic then other works of the period, like Ambrose Bierce or Kate Chopin or E.M. Forster.

    Conrad has a bit of a unique style though. Maybe it’s just one of those cases where a particular writer’s style just happens to be tricky for you? I think that’s something that just happens from time to time.